1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner a nationalised bank challenges the Part-I Award dated 28.5.2003 and the Part-II Award dated 7.9.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal no.2 in Reference No.CGIT-2/31 of 2001. By the impugned Award the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short “Industrial Tribunal”) has directed reinstatement of the Respondent-workman on the post on which he was last working viz. of a clerk and has awarded continuity of service with full back wages.

The facts in nutshell are as under:-

2. The Respondent-workman had joined services of the Petitioner in the year 1977 as a clerk and worked on the said post discharging duties as a clerk-cum-typist for 22 years. In the course of his employment in Mumbai, he was posted at several branches of the Petitioner. He was an active member of the Union and also a Committee member. There was some incident which had taken place between the employee's Union and the Officer's Association when the Respondent was posted at Khar branch. As the Respondent was a committee member, several office bearers of the Officers' Association had held a grudge against the Respondent which included Shri.B.S.Acharya – one of the employees of the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner issued a charge-sheet to the Respondent on 23.7.1998, inter alia charging the Petitioner of an act of misconduct within the meaning of clause 19.5 of Bipartite Settlement. The allegation in the charge-sheet was that the Respondent while functioning as a clerk at Nana Chowk Branch, Mumbai, since 2.2.1994 was carrying business in the name of “M/s.Amigo Industries” a constituent of the Jogeshwari Branch, Mumbai of the Petitioner. It was alleged that M/s. Amigo Industries was a partnership firm constituted in the year 1991 with Mr. Premnath Kalmady and Mr.Rajendra S. Singh as partners. That on 3.5.1993 M/s. Amigo Industries had opened a current account with Jogeshwari branch, Mumbai and had availed certain credit facilities since 1994 and that the liabilities of the said firm had aggregated to an amount of Rs.58 lakhs. It was alleged that the said liability as reflected in the books of the petitioner, was without adequate security to fall back upon. It was alleged that it was revealed that Mr. Premnath Kalmady - one of the partners of the said firm was the brother of the respondent and that Mr.Rajendra Singh was reportedly known to the respondent since the days of respondent working at Khar Branch, Mumbai of the petitioner. It was stated that the address furnished by the firm was the residential address of the respondent. It was further alleged that the respondent has invested in the business of the said firm and was involved in the maintenance of the books and involved in procuring orders, purchase of raw material, purchase of machineries and also involved in the efforts to sell/dispose of the business the firm. The charge-sheet stated that all the said circumstances indicated and suggested that the respondent floated the said firm with his brother and had indulged himself in conducting the business of the firm but however, did not come forward to clear the liabilities of the firm. The following charge was therefore, framed:-

“We, therefore, charge you for “engaging in trade or business which is beyond the scope of duties under clause 19.5 (a) of Bipartite settlement.”

The respondent was called upon to submit a written statement to the charge-sheet.

4. The respondent submitted a reply to the charge-sheet dated 8.9.1998 inter alia stating that he did not dispute that M/s.Amigo Industries was a partnership firm where Mr.Premnath Kalmady and Rajendra S. Singh were the partners and that Mr. Premanth Kalmady was brother of the respondent. It was stated that Respondent’s bother Mr.Premnath Kalmady was staying with the respondent at his residence as he did not have any house / flat at Mumbai and had given the residential address of the r